I'm glad that you brought up the yeoman's work Lew had been doing on historical revisionism. I believe it is a great honor to the legacy of Rothbard. Many libertarians have Lew Rockwell to thank for introducing us to a once stigmatized discipline. Without Lew and LvMI I may never had discovered the works from Raico, Woods, DiLorenzo, Denson et al.

Thanks. I especially appreciate the historical stuff there, including Rothbard's work as well, which some libertarians sadly demonize.

The "adding to libertarianism" crowd is making a fatal mistake. They are under the delusion that this tactic will draw in "new blood" to the liberty movement. In reality they will push more away since the ideas/philosophies they wish to add are the same flawed ideas and philosophies that drove most of us to libertarianism in the first place. Libertarianism finds it strength in its very basic, widely acceptable, core principles. Lew Rockwell knows this is the case and that is why he is such a integral part of our community. You have defended him wonderfully. Keep up the great work, Anand!

I also think that "thick" libertarianism gets intellectually (and potentially even practically) dangerous. Probably the best way to draw that "new blood" is to show how libertarian principles apply to various situations. Of course, that might not always give the best happy answer that they're looking for, but it's easy enough to give a plausible libertarian story with freedom yielding their desired results. After all, people these days are looking for a story more than an argument. (C.S. Lewis's approach to Christian apologetics, applied to libertarian political theory)

Thanks for the comment. Much appreciated.

I believe the right way to draw "new blood" into the libertarian movement is to present the libertarian message clearly and consistently, without fear and without reproach.

However, I believe the "thick-libertarian" thing is misguided and dangerous, not only when left-wingers do it but even when right-wingers do it.

I say this as a cultural conservative who believes that libertarianism should not be mixed and confused with libertinism and that most of the things that the "left-libertarians" advocate for (feminism, LGBT approval (different from "gay rights"), "tolerance," social liberal values) are contrary to my faith and my beliefs.

Essentially, if they had the upper hand, I would be attacked as a non-libertarian and an enemy of true freedom, simply because I view some things as immoral and have a clear stance on such. That doesn't mean I want to make such immoral things illegal, but it does mean that I will still consider such things immoral and contrary to my faith in Jesus Christ.

Anand, good article. In my opinion, I think a key issue impacting thin libertarianism is whether or not abortion violates the NAP. For example, because I am convinced that abortion is initiated aggression against the human fetus, am I a thick libertarian or a thin libertarian that is applying the NAP consistently? If a thin libertarian believed that it was permissible to have sexual relations with an unconscious female that he found on his property, he would not be a "thinner" libertarian, he would be a thin libertarian who did not apply the NAP consistently.

Another sound defense of Mr. Rockwell, Anand. The main group of people he (and many other LRC and Mises associates) seems to have a grudge against are beltway "libertarians" who are generally weak on the anti-war issue (and plenty of other key issues) and all too willing to compromise with politicians on this or that. These same "libertarians" have no problem attacking "purists," but when they are on the receiving end of criticism, you'll hear plenty of whining.

Thanks Henry. I appreciate the complement.

I would also like to note that these attacks against Lew can come from otherwise sound libertarians who otherwise don't like Lew or his strategies and tactics. I would also note that some of these misguided/dishonest attacks come even from those who otherwise admire Lew Rockwell. I have some familiarity with this because I have talked with one person who thinks this way

However, I think that some of the things that Lew is criticized for are nothing wrong and in many cases are right. And then some of these criticisms are exaggerations.

Just some perspective there.